Animals and birds were clearly created “imperfect”. They were shaped by their desires. The hawk longed to seek out its prey more clearly, and in generations of longing, the desire was granted.
We can certainly identify selection in the human genome and learn a tremendous amount about evolutionary processes from that.
Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimpanzee DNA are almost indistinguishable, both species must have evolved from a mutual antecedent. Nevertheless, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very different. The immense majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes but instead regulated gene expression. The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different! It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same pattern and gloss. Scientifically, we should rather accept that what is currently taboo in science may provide the details we need to arrive at a proper conclusion. Even when we assume the evolution theory in its most advanced kind, we are driven to admit that at some developmental stage after the ape form a particular miracle was necessary to introduce into primitive man's brute nature the Divine element or attributes necessary to rise further than their zoological “cousins”. The presence of selection does not explain why man continued to develop, and apes “decided” to stay apes.
In the mid-1800s, many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be 20 million to 40 million years old. It was about that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to think that the world was much older, as this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to spread in popularity. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the world is approximately 4.55 billion years old. Unable to say what evolution has accomplished, biologists now find themselves unable to say whether evolution has in fact accomplished it.
 |
| Is this your Ancestor? |
This leaves evolutionary theory in the post where it lacks the concepts required to make sense of life complexity, adaptation, intelligent design - while simultaneously conceding that the theory does little to excuse them. Criticism is getting ever closer to the center of Darwin's doctrine Historical evolutionary hypotheses, such as stories of why the giraffe acquired its long neck, or why humans have less body hair than “other” apes, might not be falsifiable or simple to investigate. This has not even changed with the presence of molecular data and quantum level physics in 2017.
For many years, life scientists have followed in keeping skepticism on the perimeter of evolutionary thought, where paleontologists, taxonomists, and philosophers linger... Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin expressed their dissatisfaction with what they termed "just-so" stories in biology by pointing out how we use historic experiments based on a certain set of assumptions to arrive at the theory scientist want to prove. Evolutionary inferences often have a historic nature to them, as we see in the above instance. Theories regarding the underlying movements of past selection or changes in gene frequencies usually focus on single unique historical events. Besides this obvious shortcoming, the evolutionary theory also produces falsifiable predictions (e.g. Williams 1973).
Yet, the theory of evolution will continue to be taught in school textbooks and play the singular role in the life of our secular culture that it has always played.
There are in Darwin's scheme no divine laws, no special creation, no heavenly guidance or mystical forces, spirit or soul/consciousness don’t exist. The theory functions simply as a description of matter in one of its modes, in a small percentage and living creatures are supposed to be something that the gods of natural law indifferently sanction and allow at free will to develop out of thin air and compressed oxygen? This sounds entirely too much like Hawking’s explanation that things make themselves out of nothing in the presence of gravitational attraction. (In his book The Grand Design). Is it not circular logic? How can gravity exist if there is no universe? And if there is no gravity, how can it be the reason for the creation of universe? Not surprising, despite these and other theories, thus far, we’ve been unable to create life from non-life in any laboratory. Lastly, if the world doesn't exist, how can it make itself? The very sentence doesn't make sense.
The theory of Darwinism is suddenly not so unique among scientific instruments, as most seem to be famous, not for what it contains, but for what it lacks. That Darwin's theory of evolution, Hawkins’s creation story and biblical stories of creation play similar parts in the human belief is an irony appreciated by too few intellectuals. Thus, not everything that is proven is true and not everything that is true, can be tried out, seems ironically enough, to be the unifying views between Science and Religion.
Now, there are only 3 explanations for the creation mystery. All three give us little to work with from a scientific perspective:
- Simply to accept the incredible coincidence.
- “God did it,” which explains nothing scientifically, even though it is true.
- The third explanation holds that we must find the right conditions for life in our universe, because if such life did not exist, we would not be here to find those conditions. Cosmologists considering our universe is just one of a vast multitude of universes, each with its own physical laws assume that through sheer numbers, then, it would not be surprising that one of these universes would have the right qualities for life. But so far there is no evidence whatsoever for other universes. Just like the previous 2; not scientifically proven.
This leads me to conclude that all points of thought are in fact not scientific, (by definition) and that scientific evidence as a barometer is not acceptable as a single instrument of drawing acceptable conclusions. Despite this evolutionist paradigm, nowhere on earth does human history go back beyond 6000 years. The testimony of man’s history, natural history and natural law, all clearly support the recent creation ex nihilo described in Genesis. And then, should we pass up making claims about selection and adaptation in humans and other similar organisms? Yes, Conscious intelligence was there to begin with! The place to look for it is not going to be in atoms or quanta (although there may be a consciousness there), but in The Genesis account we are given the missing links. Regardless of what we call it or how science and religion define it, it’s clear that there’s something out there—a force, a field of study, a presence.
Post a Comment